Graphics from 4 empirical muckrakers – 3. Thomas Piketty — Modern Inequality
from Blair Fix
I don’t think I need to say much about Thomas Piketty. He’s probably the most famous economist in the world. Since publishing Capital in the Twenty-First Century, he’s become an academic rock star.
Many heterodox economists think Piketty’s theories of inequality are naive. I would be one of those economists. But this does not detract from Piketty’s empirical work. He’s a prolific inequality muckraker.
Together with other researchers, Piketty has created the World Inequality Database. It’s an invaluable tool for understanding modern inequality. I’ll leave you with one of Piketty’s most famous charts. Here’s the history of inequality in the United States:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
RWER 26,369 subscribers
Regular Contributors
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Prepare for a surge in global inequality
- Memo to self
- Corporate reckoning
- Even in the face of coup attempt, NYT continues propaganda for upward redistribution through trade
- Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- “Capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor”
- Garbage-can econometrics
- Fooled by randomness
- Corporate power and the future of U.S. capitalism
- Debt and deficits, yet again
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- Craig on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- Ikonoclast on Even in the face of coup attempt, NYT continues propaganda for upward redistribution through trade
- JD on Even in the face of coup attempt, NYT continues propaganda for upward redistribution through trade
- Ikonoclast on Memo to self
- Meta Capitalism on Corporate reckoning
- Meta Capitalism on Garbage-can econometrics
- Meta Capitalism on Memo to self
- Meta Capitalism on Memo to self
- P S BAKER on Memo to self
- Econoclast on Memo to self
- deshoebox on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- Yoshinori Shiozawa on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- Yoshinori Shiozawa on Corporate reckoning
- ghholtham on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- davetaylor1 on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- Forthcoming WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-

Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan

————— Herman Daly —————-

————— Asad Zaman —————

—————– C. T. Kurien —————

————— Robert Locke —————-

Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
I would like it if people, when they post a data chart, also say clearly what they think it means. This particular chart showing the share of national income flowing to the top 10 percent of the US population clearly says to me, “Federal policy related to the distribution of income started making some kind of sense in about 1942, continued to be relatively intelligent until the election of Ronald Reagan as president, and thereafter went completely off the rails.” Smart economists should have no trouble explaining the devastating inefficiency of having ten percent of the people getting half the total income, since this requires that a very large number of other people in the bottom several deciles will get practically nothing.
PIKETTY is doing what education in economics should be doing: think about the content of economics as such instead of thinking within one historically particular format, I e market thinking .
Piketty’s household (or “tax unit”) data is, in my opinion, virtually useless. The Gini for “All Persons” (individuals) has been flat for the last 60 years in the US. Please do not regale with comments about the “Top Coding” problem (this data set has been solid since 1993). As I see it the US Census Gini is far more informative regarding any growing inequality in America than Prof. Piketty’s tortured statistics. The increase in the share of top decile in national income is largely attributable to the 1986 Tax Act after which many top decile taxpayers switched from filing as “C” corporations to “sub-S”. Remember Thomas Piketty recanted much of what he wrote in “Capital: In the 21st Century” in 2015.
The Gini has not been flat. It was 48.9 in 1929, fell to 36.9 in 1940, and hovered around 36.5 for four decades (with a low of 35.3 in 1977); then increased after 1980, to reach 46.3 in 2011 (45.4 in 2015). The trajectory is pretty much the same as Piketty’s income inequality data.
See https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/inequality-by-country/usa/
The Federal Reserve of St Louis shows the same rise in the gini from 1980 to 2016 (Their chart lacks earlier data).
In the future kindly strive to read people’s posts more carefully. I cited the US Census Bureau’s Gini for “individuals” and you direct me to the “household” data which has acted as you described. Like it or not the Gini for individuals has remained flat since 1960. [See: the Census data since 1993 and Kitov & Kitov (2012) for the interval from 1960 till 1993.] The household data tracks Piketty’s “tax unit” data because households are a good proxy for tax filers. If you desire an even more detailed explanation regarding the economic hoax of rising US inequality (both income and wealth) please send me an email to rwburcik@gmail.com; The entire rising US inequality meme is a clear cut fraud.
And what has happened in the last decade?